Excerpt: ... driven by Defendant Bartley. (Complaint, ¶¶ 3‐5, 7, 11‐13, 15; Amendment to Complaint.) Negligence may be alleged in general terms. (Lopez v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795; Stowe v. Fritzie Hotels, Inc. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 416, 421; Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 154.) “[A]fter what was done has been stated, it is sufficient to allege that it was negligently done, without stating the particu...

Excerpt: ...he court may take judicial notice. C.C.P. § 438(d); see California Evidence Code § 452. In his answer, Defendant denied paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14 of Plaintiff's complaint based on lack of information or belief. Those are the operative paragraphs alleging the elements of common counts; an unpaid debt that a defendant owes to plaintiff. 4 Witkin, California Procedure (6th ed. 2021) Pleading, § 565, p. 654. Therefore, DEFENDANT has specifica...

Excerpt: ...ither on the face of the pleadings or upon facts of which the court may take judicial notice. C.C.P. § 438(d); see California Evidence Code § 452. Other extrinsic evidence, such as discovery admissions controverting the pleadings, cannot be considered on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial § 7:322, p. 7(I)‐92. PLAINTIFF only relies on the discovery admissions in this case to argue that there are...

Excerpt: ...Court on December 17, 2019. (Complaint, par. 1). Plaintiff clearly had notice of the potential joint responsibility of the Superior Court as a potential owner of the sidewalk given that she expressly plead that she was leaving the court building when she tripped “directly in front of the Solano County Superior Court.” (Complaint, par. 1). Government Code, section 915(c) clearly specifies the manner in which a claim against a superior court sh...

Excerpt: ...022, which was expressly stipulated to by the parties. The untimely opposition is stricken. 3 Parties to appear to discuss procedural aspects of this case including the stipulation to amend the complaint discussed on the record on April 23, 2021. This case was returned on remittitur after the trial court granted summary judgment. However, the court understands that the causes of action that were returned by the appellate court were solely a cause...

Excerpt: ...oversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.2.) In ruling on a petition to compel arbitration, the trial court shall order parties to arbitrate if it determines that a valid agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists by utilizing principles of California contract law. (Luxor Cabs, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 970, 977.) Though California and federal l...

Excerpt: ...dants' motion to strike punitive damages as to minor defendant CHARLES THOMAS PAUL is denied. A motion to strike challenges pleading issues that are usually not addressable on a demurrer, including “irrelevant matter.” (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, §§ 7:179, 7:182, pp. 7(1)‐76, 7(1)‐77.) Irrelevant matter includes demands for judgment requesting relief not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (CCP § 431.10) A m...

Excerpt: ...the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the prosecution of his action. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (d).) When awarding these required fees a court must make an initial determination of the actual time expended and then ascertain whether under all the circumstances of the case the amount of actual time expended and the charge for the time are reasonable. (Hanna v. MercedesBenz USA, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 493, 5...

Excerpt: ...ative decision to demonstrate wherein the proceedings were unfair, in excess of jurisdiction, or showed ‘prejudicial abuse of discretion'”].) Nothing in the administrative record lodged with the court suggests that Petitioner was not given adequate notice of the pendency of the action or that he was denied an adequate opportunity to present his objections. (Doe v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1077.) The court notes that...

Excerpt: ...igation is not absolute” and counsel has a duty to “not withdraw from employment until [s]he has taken reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the right of [her] client.”. (Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 197.) “It [is] the duty of the trial court to see that [the client is] protected, so far as possible, from the consequences of [counsel's] improper abandonment of [her] client.” (Ibid.) At the September 20, 2021, c...

Excerpt: ...ts have not demonstrated adequate prejudice from the proposed amendment and the liberal rule of allowance must prevail. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048; Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564.) Plaintiff has agreed to submit to a subsequent deposition (Decl. of Buchanan (1/4/22), ¶ 3) and Defendants have made no showing that they are not capable of completing the additional written discovery r...

Excerpt: ...il to agree upon or advance litigation. This case was filed in 2016 and is past the deadline for discretionary dismissal for failure to prosecute. In addition, given the inability of the litigants to provide direction to counsel, the court questions the individual capacity and desire of the litigants to maintain this action. An Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed and the lis pendens vacated shall issue to Plaintiffs' counsel...

Excerpt: ...of this suit and settlement negotiations. In lieu of a court‐supervised winding up, the parties agreed that Defendants JAMES and VALERIE INGLEBRIGHT would be solely responsible for winding up the corporation. Neither party made indemnification of unknown third‐party claims or unknown tax liabilities a condition of settlement. However, it was clear that Defendants JAMES and VALERIE INGLEBRIGHT assumed exclusive responsibility for winding up th...

Excerpt: ...ng, or it is withdrawn by the moving parties, the court may proceed later in this scheduled hearing to consider argument on the demurrer and writ. Otherwise, if the disqualification motion is granted, or taken under submission, the court will discuss the resetting for hearing of the demurrer and the writ. Page 3 of 4 As the tentative ruling on the disqualification motion: Moving parties identified Penal Code §1424(a)(1) as the basis for this dis...

Excerpt: ...e of action under section 1983. As to the state law claims, any claim against a public entity must be authorized by statute. Government Code section 815. Government Code section 844.6 immunizes public entities from suits based on injury to a prisoner. The only exception to this broad immunity relevant here is Government Code section 845.6, which makes public employees and entities liable for injuries to a prisoner in certain situations, including...

Excerpt: ...he court may take judicial notice. C.C.P. § 438(d); Evidence Code § 452. In his answer, Defendant denied paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14 of Plaintiff's complaint based on lack of information or belief. Those are the operative paragraphs alleging the elements of common counts; an unpaid debt that a defendant owes to plaintiff. 4 Witkin, California Procedure (6th ed. 2021) Pleading, § 565, p. 654. Therefore, DEFENDANT has specifically denied, bas...

Excerpt: ...Code § 26038 which would entitle them to judgment on the causes of action1 . (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(1).) It is undisputed that in order to operate a cannabis business in the Benicia City limits, the Benicia Municipal Code requires a valid use permit. (See Benicia Municipal Code, § 17.84.040.) It is also undisputed that the defaulting defendant, EVERGREEN RELIEF, entered into a commercial lease with Defendant landowner TUTTLE FAMILY LIVING ...

Excerpt: ...anted to compel further responses to the following interrogatories: Form Interrogatories 15.1; 17.1; and Special Interrogatories 47‐ 51. The response to 15.1 thus far provided by FF PROPERTIES, LP dba FAIRFIELD PROPERTIES, LP (“FF”) did not include the names and addresses of each and every witness (some of which were referred to only in general descriptive terms), nor did it identify each and every document FF asserts support any denials of...

Excerpt: ...Defendant with a detailed meet and confer letter and that opposing counsel telephonically discussed the issues raised in the letter, it is evident that counsel did not engage in a “serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution” that amounted to a sufficient “attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294; Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal....

Excerpt: ...he Vallejo Police Department, it is undisputed that Petitioner WHITNEY was an at‐will employee. Under the 14th Amendment, a public employee discharged for a reason which might seriously impair his or her opportunity to earn a living, or which might seriously change his or her standing or associations in the community, is entitled to a name‐clearing hearing. (Lubey v. City and County of San Francisco (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 340.) In addition to t...

Excerpt: ... personal service of the summons and complaint. However, substitute service by serving a competent member of the household and mailing the summons and complaint to the defendant at the address at which the defendant resides is also an effective form of service. Defendant acknowledges that she lived at the home in which substitute service was perfected. Other evidence also supports the existence of notice to Defendant of the judgment and renewal o...

Excerpt: ... now moves for class certification in this action against Defendants WAHOO LOGISTICS, LLC (“WAHOO”), MOTION EXPRESS (“MOEX”), and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. (“FEDEX”). Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: “All hourly truck loaders/unloaders and delivery drivers employed by Defendants to work at the FedEx Ground Package branch located at 5191 Fermi Drive, Fairfield, California during the period of four years p...

Excerpt: ...t of Corr. and Rehab. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 377, 386.) To be “material”, the change in work conditions must be more than merely contrary to the employee's interests or desires, but must consist of a detrimental and substantial effect on the employee's work environment. (Ibid.; Akers v. County of San Diego (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1445.) “[W]orkplaces are rarely idyllic retreats, and the mere fact that an employee is displeased by an emp...

Excerpt: ...any written document bearing the signatures of the parties or their attorneys here. Instead, she relies upon some communications between the attorneys, via telephone and e‐mail, which her counsel claims constitute a written settlement agreement. E‐mails are insufficient to meet the C.C.P. section 664.6 “signature” requirement. [A] typed name at the end of an e‐mail is not, by itself, a signature under case law. Courts have held that typ...

Excerpt: ...contention cannot support liability for negligence. As a host, ELLSWORTH is subject to immunity by statute. (Civ. Code, § 1714.) A “social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person” cannot “be held legally accountable for damages suffered by that person, or for injury to the person or property of … any third person, resulting from the consumption of those beverages.” (Civ. Code § 1714(c).) An exception to this immunity exis...